Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Accomack County, Virginia. Now Biloxi, Mississippi. What do these three places have in common? They’ve banned Harper Lee’s 1960 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, To Kill A Mockingbird, from the public school curriculum.
“To Kill A Mockingbird,” considered one of the best novels of the 20th century, is also one of the most controversial. According to the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, the Harper Lee novel is one of the most challenged and banned classical books. Many of these objections come from parents, school administrators or advocacy groups who contend that its racially and sexually-charged themes are inappropriate for young readers.
On the one hand, it uses words that, while commonplace in music, are deemed unacceptable on paper. On the other hand, it challenges the “believe the victim” narrative, as it reflects an innocent black man convicted upon the lie of a white woman. These may have been important, provocative themes when the book was written, but we were a tougher society then, capable of thinking instead of merely crying whenever an idea challenged our sacred cows.
For criminal defense lawyers, the banning of To Kill A Mockingbird holds a special place in hell. This was the book that pushed many to go to law school, to defend the accused, to want to be like Atticus Finch. This was our book. And they’ve stolen it, twisted it, tainted it.
Katie Rose Guest Pryal explains at Quartz:
As I’ve said before, the world does not need more lawyers like Atticus Finch. He’s a flawed inspiration for attending law school. He took on a case he didn’t want to take because no one else would do it and because his client, Tom Robinson, was not only righteous; he was obviously innocent. Then, Atticus slut-shamed an abused, impoverished girl to get his client off. Helped along by Gregory Peck’s steadfast portrayal in the beloved Hollywood classic, Atticus Finch, the lawyer-hero of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, has been inspiring law students for decades.
If you’re over a certain age, you’re shaking your head at this drivel.
And if you’re passionate about social justice, you hate this book, which exposes your false god. But even if you’re not of that ilk, what about the “horrible” language in the book, ignoring Atticus’ explaining to Scout why the use of racially-charged words is wrong?
It was an administrative and department decision, a member of the school board said, and not something that the school board voted on. It happened Wednesday or Thursday.
Kenny Holloway, vice president of the Biloxi School Board said, “There were complaints about it. There is some language in the book that makes people uncomfortable, and we can teach the same lesson with other books.
There is a word in the book. A bad word. The “n-word,” as if the euphemism somehow makes the word “nigger” less offensive. Better to sow the seed in your head than print the letters on paper, so one doesn’t soil their intellectual purity with this terrible word. What did Lenny Bruce know anyway? Isn’t it better to pretend the word doesn’t exist?
But the word, the ideas, the book, “makes people uncomfortable”? There was a time when this was the virtue of books, of speech, of ideas, that they made people think about things they would rather not. Making people uncomfortable was what thinking people aspired to accomplish.
Remind me again about the safe world, where no one feels uncomfortable, where no one feels unsafe, where no one is ever sad, that comprises your Utopia. Banning books like To Kill A Mockingbird will certainly further this effort. Huck Finn, too. And let’s not forget Orwell, Huxley and Heinlein, so no one ever has to ask what the letters TANSTAAFL mean.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It might help if kids were kept safe from the Bible, too what with all that begatting. And the Philistines were pretty well dissed even before Samson took the jawbone of an a-word to them. And don’t get me started on the Song of Songs.
(Actually, the Bible’s been banned from schools, too.)
I used to sneak Song of Songs at night with a flashlight when I was a kid. Of course, there was no Victoria’s Secret catalog then.
Right, but you did have the Sears Catalog with the women’s lingerie section…
We were a Monkey Wards household.
In Fahrenheit 451, the reason books were burned was that they made people uncomfortable.
You’re just trying to make me feel bad about naming Heinlein and not Bradbury. I’m not taking the bait.
But the word, the ideas, the book, “makes people uncomfortable”? There was a time when this was the virtue of books, of speech, of ideas, that they made people think about things they would rather not. Making people uncomfortable was what thinking people aspired to accomplish.
* * *
I can’t improve your words. They are all that is sorrowful in our time. Being uncomfortable has been outlawed. Of course, the purpose of literature is to examine, compel and evoke thought–to create discomfort. It’s slow communication. Unlike conversation, it is deliberative. It works.
But now, deliberative thought is anathema. Facts and ideas are to be assumed as though they are elements of a law school hypothetical. A fact exists because someone, somewhere, said so. Facts are unassailable, and to try is mocked. So, far too many things are assumed and far too many ignored to satisfy a belief. It’s the Wizard of Oz: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” Of course, that piece of literature has also been banned from time-to-time.
I am “over a certain age,” and happily so. I wouldn’t want to be twenty, facing a future where technology gobbles careers and reason is surrendered en mass. Their future is somewhat bleak, and the tools to avoid the probable just don’t exist for them. Questioning things, all things, is the hallmark of human existence. That ability is what sets us apart from cows and their like. I fear a future of human cows. Orwell may have been right after all.
Miss Lee’s book was required reading when I was in high school. The discussions were animated, which made them purposeful. Now the book is banned. Jesus wept.
The book is on my shelf, but I’ve decided to buy another out of spite. Sadly, bookstores are no more, so I must go to Amazon.
But we’ve seen the pendulum swing before. If there wasn’t hope, I wouldn’t be writing and you wouldn’t be reading.
I read because I think, and think because I read. The difference in the pendulum swing is that membership in my club is dwindling.
Your club? That could be a problem.
I actually disagree with Ms. Pryal, out of my law school class. The true idealists tend to be the ones who’s energy lasts longest. Out of the 1 million bad patryals of lawyers…she has to kill Atticus? Who do we have left? My Cousin Vinny…..Rainmaker??
They say doctors don’t seem to eat their own as bad. Whenever a positive doctor archetype comes on the screen, I only see the doctors in the room smile.
Sit down, Matthew. I have something to tell you and it’s going to make you sad. You may not be the only person who “actually disagrees” with Pryal.
Some years ago, I was at a CLE session where we spent probably 30 minutes cataloguing the many ways in which Atticus Finch’s representation was deficient. It was an eye opener for many of the lawyers (especially the younger ones) there.
Every movie can’t be My Cousin Vinny, you know. I wonder how such a CLE would go over today?
The yoots of today would have trouble with it.
Ally McBeal. (I think she was the inspiration for Amal Clooney).
If the unsafe language and depictions of due process aren’t bad enough, the core lesson itself is irresponsibly subversive by today’s university standards:
“With ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ specifically, the teens were slated to learn that compassion and empathy are not dependent upon race or education, according to the school’s website.”
No wonder the academics and activists don’t want the kids taught this liberal trash. They might be troublemakers when they get to college.
You have completely subverted the message by buying into the “official” interpretation. In the book, protagonist Atticus stands up to the mob. In college, they *are* the mob. Duh.
The school administrators are properly exercising their duty to decide what books will be used in their school. It may be stupid and ignorant (and I think it is) but I would certainly defend their absolute authority to decide what goes on in their own school.
Do you think the pitchforks and torches routine is going to lead to more liberal curricula in backwards schools? Knowing that a media shitstorm could land on them at any time will only lead to passive and insipid choices.
Was someone challenging the authority of a school board to exercise its authority?
Yes, maybe they’ll ban the book twice. Moron.
Ban a book, go to jail.
Burn a book, you burn with it.
They got the library at Alexandria, they’re not getting mine.
Translation:
We believe certain books must be banned,
To advance noble goals that we’ve planned.
Our foremost intention:
Discomfort prevention.
Books must all be acceptably bland!
Fubar has returned!
With limericks incisive
Lurkers, rejoicing.
In the endless re-writing of history this is unsurprising.
It was obvious we were headed down this road when golliwogs went out! Funny how Noddy & Bigears could be celebrated for sleeping together, but the poor ol’ Golliwog was a terribly racist thing!
As for Little Black Sambo… There will always be something else to ban!
Is it possible the portrayal of Southern society’s so-called values, like racism, is what really makes them uncomfortable?
I hear every southerner carries a secret noose around in his back pocket just in case he has to join a mob to storm the jail, unlike the northerners who believe the victim.
Neil Gaiman, in a speech reprinted in The Guardian about the importance of reading, made this point: “Well-meaning adults can easily destroy a child’s love of reading: stop them reading what they enjoy, or give them worthy-but-dull books that you like, the 21st-century equivalents of Victorian “improving” literature. You’ll wind up with a generation convinced that reading is uncool and worse, unpleasant.” I think of this whenever I read about books being banned for being uncomfortable, or challenging, or some other nonsense — which always really means, for making kids think.
(Here’s the link — posted with the realization that it might be edited out.https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/15/neil-gaiman-future-libraries-reading-daydreaming)
Not sure why you felt the need for a link, but since this is an old post already, whatevs. It seems this comment would have been better used on this post.
Great books will be read because they’re great books. People realize kale is healthier than ice cream, but the latter will never replace the former, which is why life is wonderful despite the well-intended controlling scolds.
I just read the “American Heart” post, and thought the same thing — I am catching up on SJ after a busy week. . . .